Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:40:30 -0700 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] paravirt_ops: refactor struct paravirt_ops into smaller pv_*_ops |
| |
Nakajima, Jun wrote: > Yes. For the native, "safe_halt" is "sti; hlt". The "native_halt" is > just "hlt". So the para_virt part of "hlt" could be moved to pv_cpu_ops, > and the "sti" part stays in pv_irq_ops. >
By "sti part", you mean the full "sti; hlt" sequence of safe_halt, right? Since it needs to be an atomic sequence to avoid race conditions, so the native sequence has to be precisely "sti; hlt" to take advantage of the sti shadow, and other pv-backends will need their own way to guarantee this atomicity.
But I'm quite happy to put plain "hlt" into cpu_ops as halt_cpu() or something (and perhaps rename safe_halt to something a bit more descriptive).
> Actually my concern was that such misc ops might grow to include the > things don't fit well anywhere else. To me, then pv_lazy_ops (with just > .set_mode) might be better. >
The lazy interface has needed a rethink anyway.
J - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |